Alcohol users don't get the same dependance on their drugs as nicotine users, which is pretty high; Heroin is close to nicotine in addiction. Nicotine addicts are probably the most dependant on their drug. Heroin is up there also. You can also count in withdrawl and tolerance to that drug. If you count those in, I would say that Heroin is the most addictive of all.

I am (mildly) allergic to nicotine so I don't enjoy places that have large amounts of smokers. I would be interested in what nicotine would do to a body that is allergic to it.

You say that you crave the effects when you weren't smoking. Hell, I crave the effects too - but I know for DAMN sure that I'm not addicted to them. Just because you really want to do something, that doesn't necessarily constitute an addiction, does it?

because of my schedule and my love of driving (or dare I say...ADDICTION... to driving) I haven't been good and drunk for a long long LONG LONG time, and I have a bottle of Goldschlagger and some Puerto Rican Rum in More Spam Vomit I have been DYING to chug, but I haven't taken a sip of either because I need to go places or can't risk a hangover on a weekday.

Here's how I see it:
Heroin and other drugs can really only be enjoyed in the privacy of your own or a friend's home. Going out while intoxicated with these is very risky.

Alcohol can be enjoyed in someone's home, or in a restaurant or bar or bowling alley or pool hall or any other social place. Going out while intoxicated is minimally risky as long as you are accompanied by a friend who isn't intoxicated.

Smoking can be enjoyed in all of the above mentioned places, except you can do it while driving, don't need a friend around, and can only get in trouble for having them if you're under 18 years old.

All of the above mentioned things make people feel physically and mentally better when used. Now, there are a few people out there who really need a powerful high or buzz, and wont settle for something as small as a nicotine rush. But for the rest of the world, that's exactly what they need - quick, easy, legal, & once the cig is out you can do anything you want.

Smokers are everywhere, and nicotine is very easy to get a hold of. I think THAT'S the reason it's so hard to quit, not because of the drug itself. And, no offense, but comparing heroin to nicotine is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. A heroin addiction is about 100,000x worse than a nicotine addiction. If you take heroin ONCE, there is a 3% chance that your withdraw symptoms will become so severe you will die if not hospitalized in time. The expression "Cold Turkey" actually comes from heroin, because when you try to quit you get huge goosebumps and sweat profusely, and your skin resembles that of a cold dead turkey.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure nicotine withdraw blows, but I think a lot of the "cravings" are psychological, not physical, effects. You associate the smell and taste of cigs with a rush, so when you smell smoke on other people, like Pavlov's salivating dogs, your body expects a high. When you don't deliver, the contrast between how your mind thinks your body should feel versus how your body actually does feel creates the craving. Compared to how you feel on a nicotine high, your sober body feels slugish or weak or drained.

Does this sound logical to any of you smokers out there, or am I seriously underestimating the vice of nicotine?

HowStuffWorks.com wrote:Different people metabolize nicotine at different rates. Some people even have a genetic defect in the enzymes in their liver that break down nicotine, whereby the mutant enzyme is much less effective at metabolizing nicotine than the normal variant. If a person has this gene, their blood and brain nicotine levels stay higher for longer after smoking a cigarette. Normally, people keep smoking cigarettes throughout the day to maintain a steady level of nicotine in their bodies. Smokers with this gene usually end up smoking many fewer cigarettes, because they don't constantly need more nicotine.

This makes so much sense. This might be why I can take 2 puffs and be high as a kite for the next 45 minutes.

I tried a similar experiment but, knowing how sick a first time smoker can get, started much slower and, first, focused on learning to inhale. Well, needless to say, by month 2 I was definitely addicted. I suggest that most people shouldn't even consider doing this. That "experiment" was 5 years ago...and I'm still smoking.

Still a very controversial subject, as to who can smoke and where. Definitely some health hazards from cigarette smoke. May be some health hazards from those "E" cigarettes also. Very few places of 'public accommodation' allow smoking.I switched from true cigarettes more than 45 years ago.. to small cigars. Still with the habit. Cigarettes gave me some problems with upset stomach and such.

You obviously were suffering from nicotine poisoning and your "experiment" suffered from lack of correct methodology. What you should have done was, first get used to "puffing" thus getting nicotine from your swallowing saliva and from your salivary glands near your mouth. Inhaling is another matter and it should have been done meekly at first and, maybe, after a few packs, with increasing volume. Doing this, very slowly, would have had you addicted within 2 months if you increased your number of cigarettes slowly (maybe adding a cigarette every day or two). Additionally, associating your smoking with certain normal tasks (prior to sleeping, leaving your house, talking on the phone, etc.) would have added to the addiction factor by introducing behavioral associations.

I actually did this and I can tell you that it will certainly lead to addiction. For me it took about 2 months. I did it for one year and I'm now sorry I did it as I found it impossible to completely stop. Worse, though I was able to reduce my smoking the fact remains that, over time, the numbers of cigarettes each day increased until it settled at between 10 and 15 each day.

Smoking was a common habit in the 1940s through the 1970s. Sort of a 'must do' in order to be part of the public trends. Likely it was considered glamorous or fashionable that movie stars and other famous people smoked.I did not start smoking until after age 16, in the late 1950s. By order of my parents, "until old enough". But I was exposed to second-hand smoke from cigars, cigarettes and pipes for many years before that. Only after several months, did I start inhaling the smoke, instead of just 'mouthing' it. No, never tried "corn silk" or other "weeds". Was always regular tobacco. DIY kits were popular, so you could mix your own blend, and roll nearly perfect cigarettes. With or without a filter.I recall an article in Life Magazine® many years ago, where the lungs of two naturally deceased men were compared. One was a farmer that smoked, the other was a city dweller that did not. The lungs of the farmer were still pink and healthy, while the lungs of the city dweller were almost carbonized. Yes, I may quit someday, as the cost of this pleasure had become expensive to maintain.